SUNIL AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1740/DEL/2012Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 March 2017AY 2005-065 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal followed a previous decision in a similar case, directing the AO to decide the assessee's objections and provide an opportunity for a hearing before proceeding with the assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed an order confirming the addition of a gift and alleged commission to income. A key issue was the Assessing Officer's (AO) failure to deal with the assessee's preliminary objections before passing the assessment order.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO properly dealt with the assessee's objections to the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 before passing the assessment order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

PER H.S. SIDHU, JM ORDER The Assessee has filed the Appeal against the impugned Order dated 14.2.2012 of Ld. CIT(A)-XXV, New Delhi, pertaining to assessment year 2005-06. The assessee has taken the following grounds:-

1.

1. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO to issue notice under section 148 of the Act ignoring that the foundation for the assumption of the jurisdiction was never laid by him.

2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the AO recorded reasons to issue notice under section 148 for the assessment year 2004-05 whereas the notice under section 148 was issued for the assessment year 2005-

6. Issuance of notice for the assessment year 2005-06 without recording reasons for the assessment year is illegal, void ab initio, bad in law. 3. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the order passed by the AO under section 143(3)/147 is violative of the mandatory procedure laid down by the Apex Court. As the preliminary objections filed by the assessee on 16.6.2008 against the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 were never dealt with by the AO before passing the assessment order.

4. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in adding the gift of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the income of the assessee / as undisclosed sources.

5. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in adding Rs. 50,000/- to the income on account of the alleged commission paid.

6. Your petitioner prays to be allowed, to give, to amend and to add any further grounds and evidence at the time of hearing.

7. The above-said order to be set aside and grant the necessary relief to your petitioner.

2.

The facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.

3.

At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the assessee has only pressed the ground no. 3 and stated that the similar issue involved in that ground has already been decided by the ITAT ‘G’ Bench, New Delhi vide its order dated 17.5.2016 in the case of Santosh Aggarwal vs. ITO passed in (AY 2005-06), and set aside the issue to the file of the AO to decide the objections and give full opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, he requested that by respectfully follow the same directions, the present issue involved in ground no. 3 may also be sent back to the AO with the similar directions.

4.

On the contrary, Ld. Sr. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

5.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the impugned order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and the decision dated 17.5.2016 referred by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee of the ITAT, ‘G’ Bench, Delhi in the case of Santosh Aggarwal vs. ITO passed in (AY 2005-06). For the sake of clarity, I am reproducing the finding given by the Tribunal vide para no. 7 & 8 vide its order dated 17.5.2016 in assessee’s own case are as under:- “7. We have heard both the parties and perused all

the records. The objection letter dated 16.06.2008 was clearly mentioned in the assessment order. Despite taking note of the same, the AO failed to take any decision on the said objections. The CIT(A) totally over looked the fact that objections of the assessee were not dealt by the AO. In view of this, it will be proper, if the objections are considered and decided by the AO in the interest of justice. Both the sides are agreed to this proposition. It is hereby directed to the AO to decide the objection dated 16.6.2008 filed by the assessee before taking up the assessment. Needless to say, the assessee be given full opportunity to be heard.

8.

In result, the appeal of the assessee is aprtly

allowed for statistical purpose. 6. After perusing the aforesaid decision dated 17.5.2016 of the ITAT, ‘G’ Bench, New Delhi in the case of Santosh Aggarwal vs. ITO passed in (AY 2005-06), I am of the considered view that the issue in dispute is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision, because the facts and circumstances of the present case are exactly similar and identical to that case. Therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid decision dated 17.5.2016 of the ITAT, ‘G’ Bench, Delhi, as aforesaid the issue involved in ground no. 3 is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer in the light of the decision of the ITAT, ‘G’ Bench dated 17.5.2016 passed in the case of Santosh Aggarwal vs. ITO (Supra).

7.

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 03/03/2017.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →